Evolution vs Creation in public schools

[Logos]

Which is exactly the same reasoning as "Zeus must have thrown that lightning". That is also intelligent design. A way to explain what we can't explain otherwise.

But we know this is false since Zeus is not in my pantheon. Rather, we know for a fact that it was Marduk, Lord of the Four Winds, Agriculture, Fertility, and War who throws lightning from the heavens. There is no need for a 'scientific' inquiry to confirm what we already know here to be true.

[Expat]

Wait, you just said there's no such thing as a "belief in science". So how can you be mad at people who don't believe in science? No such person should exist.

Ok, that is a fair point. Rather than 'believe in science' I should have said something more to the effect, 'those who devalue it without understanding it and yet continue to enjoy the benefits of its application'.

[Hitta]

I don't know that my senses aren't wrong, but your question is irrelevant. You asked me to name an objective truth -- and I did.

You do realize what the word objective means don't you? And I realize that you might be trying the ole switchaoo thing in which you think that your mind is the objective reality because you only know that you exist, and your reality is the reality(though that's unprovable). If you don't know that your senses are wrong, how do you know if you are right?

[UDP]

I'm sure you know this, but I figured it had to be said

but, she has Se as PolR. she doesn't care one bit about pulling anyone else's strings. (i'm betting here)

Whether or not someone wants to pull strings of someone else is not due to functional arrangement.

Why or why not might be more related to socionics.

I believe that Minde doesn't want to do that, but that's because she is Minde, not because she simultaneously has Ne as second and Se as POLR functions.

[dbmmama]

Ok, that is a fair point. Rather than 'believe in science' I should have said something more to the effect, 'those who devalue it without understanding it and yet continue to enjoy the benefits of its application'.

and yet, the same can be said for the opposite type people. those that devalue "god" or "whatever" without understanding it and yet continue to enjoy the benefits of it's application. lol

why can't both be true at the same time then? rhetorical! cause i need to go...

[Expat]

There are two ways of trying to find scientific evidence. One way is to say, "There is this phenomenon. I wonder what causes it. Let's see where the evidence points." WITHOUT having any particular expectation of where the evidence will point.

Then there is another way. You have these strong religious beliefs that science contradicts, so you piecemeal little bits of scientific evidence together, ignoring huge amounts of scientific evidence in between and necessary for real understanding, in order to prove what your religion believes. That is not real science. It's propaganda.

Yes. To be fair, lots of supposed scientists often fall into the trap of using the second way, sometimes without even realizing it.

[Slacker]

Yes. To be fair, lots of supposed scientists often fall into the trap of using the second way, sometimes without even realizing it.

Absolutely. But the people who started noticing that science didn't point the way the Bible said didn't have that problem. Now that evolution has become the standard though, I'm sure many scientists are just as close-minded.

[dbmmama]

Absolutely. But the people who started noticing that science didn't point the way the Bible said didn't have that problem. Now that evolution has become the standard though, I'm sure many scientists are just as close-minded.

there are quantum physicists whom i've read about who are open to many possibilities within it all.

[Minde]

i think i love you.

You're not too bad yourself, most of the time. Though I think we sometimes come to different conclusions about things, you do have an opennes of mind that I like. And an enthusiasm for people and bettering their lives, which I really like, too.

Clarification: Evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life. Evolution deals with the process of genetic variation between and in generations of populations.

Thanks for the clarification. Most people tend to lump the both together, which is kind of what I was doing. But, you're right, the difference can be inportant.

There are two ways of trying to find scientific evidence. One way is to say, "There is this phenomenon. I wonder what causes it. Let's see where the evidence points." WITHOUT having any particular expectation of where the evidence will point.

Then there is another way. You have these strong religious beliefs that science contradicts, so you piecemeal little bits of scientific evidence together, ignoring huge amounts of scientific evidence in between and necessary for real understanding, in order to prove what your religion believes. That is not real science. It's propaganda.

You and Expat seem to make a nice pair. People who have faith different than yours should be shut down because they can't possibly have brains. Oh, wait, that's what you accuse us of doing...


@ Expat, I can see we are on very different pages. At the moment, it appears that it might take a lot of effort to reconcile the differences. I can't tell if it would be worth it at this point.

I will say this, though - So long as you call faith in intelligent design a "cop-out" you are insulting my integrity.

I don't mind insults from people like Phaedrus because, well, it's Phaedrus. That's the way he is and since he doesn't seem to have much power I don't take him too seriously or worry too much about him. But, this coming from you, someone I respect and like... It does hurt a bit.

[Expat]

Absolutely. But the people who started noticing that science didn't point the way the Bible said didn't have that problem. Now that evolution has become the standard though, I'm sure many scientists are just as close-minded.

A good modern example of close-mindedness in scientists is global warming.

[Expat]

You and Expat seem to make a nice pair. People who have faith different than yours should be shut down because they can't possibly have brains. Oh, wait, that's what you accuse us of doing...

It's not about that at all. It's about making clear the distinction between science and faith. Which you are mixing together by insisting in referring to 'faith' in science. I have no wish to shut down anyone who believes in intelligent design.

@ Expat, I can see we are on very different pages. At the moment, it appears that it might take a lot of effort to reconcile the differences. I can't tell if it would be worth it at this point.

I will say this, though - So long as you call faith in intelligent design a "cop-out" you are insulting my integrity.

I don't mind insults from people like Phaedrus because, well, it's Phaedrus. That's the way he is and since he doesn't seem to have much power I don't take him too seriously or worry too much about him. But, this coming from you, someone I respect and like... It does hurt a bit.

It is not my wish to hurt you, obviously, far less to insult your integrity. You are taking personally what is, to me, an impersonal statement, which if I tried to modify, would be a violation of my personal integrity.

[Logos]

Thanks for the clarification. Most people tend to lump the both together, which is kind of what I was doing. But, you're right, the difference can be inportant.

The clarification was not aimed directly at you, since others were making this assumption, but you merely provided the opportunity for a point of clarification. It is somewhat understandable why they are lumped together, since evolution, as a result of the avalanche it started in science, has come to represent a multitude of a different but intricately related branches of scienctific processes. The implication of evolution is a process with no regards to an intentional design for a given living being, which of course flies in the face of the emphasis on orderly creation found in creationism.

You and Expat seem to make a nice pair. People who have faith different than yours should be shut down because they can't possibly have brains. Oh, wait, that's what you accuse us of doing...

They are not accusing you of doing that. Rather, they are accusing scientists or religious fundamentalists who have a backwards approach to science (put the cart before the horse, beg the question, etc.) by having a preexisting belief in something without sufficient proof and then go about selectively using evidence to try and prove it.

A good modern example of close-mindedness in scientists is global warming.

In which direction?

[Expat]

On this, something I think people might consider. I suggest that if the many-worlds-intepretation of quantum theory is correct, intelligent design becomes redundant. If the many-worlds-intepretation is incorrect, then I think that the case for intelligent design becomes much stronger.

[Minde]

It's not about that at all. It's about making clear the distinction between science and faith. Which you are mixing together by insisting in referring to 'faith' in science. I have no wish to shut down anyone who believes in intelligent design.

I believe what I do because I have evidence that points toward it, again whether its something measurable like gravity or something that is (as yet) intangible like the soul. To me, there is no great distinction between faith and science as it all deals with reality and the pursuit of understanding that reality, and how one interacts with it.

It is not my wish to hurt you, obviously, far less to insult your integrity. You are taking personally what is, to me, an impersonal statement, which if I tried to modify, would be a violation of my personal integrity.

Then we are at odds.

[jason_m]

I went to a Catholic high school. We were told that the stories of creation should not be taken as fact, that they were how the people of those times attempted to explain things that they didn't understand. What does that tell you?

Jason

[Bardia]

Evolution occurring in species with very short generationss (bacteria, even fruit flies etc.) is observable, testable and provable. Speciation through bottlenecks and isolated populations etc. is also observable and happens. However, when you attempt to explain the origin of life itself through science you currently can't. You can come up with theories, but none can be passed off as being absolutely true (which is of course the nature of theory I realize). Some theories are better guesses and have more supporting evidence than others, but you can't say absolutely "this is what happened."
.
Certainly nobody can say that about creationism either. It is a belief. I personally hold that particular belief to be true, and "intelligent design" makes far more sense to me than random chance when I look at the natural world. The intricacies and how everthing works together, the beauty and utility of the design. . . But proof? Of course I can't prove it either. I would rather they leave speculation out when teaching, except as speculation. Some of the first evolutionary theories that came about were pretty crazy. And ideas like spontaneous generation et al that were believed to be true. . . yikes.

This pretty much lines up with what I think.

Clarification: Evolution does NOT deal with the origin of life. Abiogenesis is the study of the origin of life. Evolution deals with the process of genetic variation between and in generations of populations.

That is true but aren't they sort of linked? Creation covers both the beginning of life and the differentiation of species so should not the two be argued together against creation?

[Logos]

I went to a Catholic high school. We were told that the stories of creation should not be taken as fact, that they were how the people of those times attempted to explain things that they didn't understand. What does that tell you?

Jason

That you went to a Catholic high school.

That is true but aren't they sort of linked? Creation covers both the beginning of life and the differentiation of species so should not the two be argued together against creation?

Evolution begins at the point in which life exists that is capable of passing on its genes to successive generations. So while they are linked, technically they are not the same. There is an extent to which saying that evolution deals with the origin of life is true, but only insofar as saying that evolution invariably involves the process by which the origin of current species was derived through previous generations of life.

[Expat]

In which direction?

I have seen cases in both directions.

[Minde]

They are not accusing you of doing that. Rather, they are accusing scientists or religious fundamentalists who have a backwards approach to science (put the cart before the horse, beg the question, etc.) by having a preexisting belief in something without sufficient proof and then go about selectively using evidence to try and prove it.

Evidently, having religious conviction is enough to get one accused of having such a "backward approach to science." It's that mindset that bugs the willies out of me.

[Logos]

Evidently, having religious conviction is enough to get one accused of having such a "backward approach to science." It's that mindset that bugs the willies out of me.

I do not think that having religious conviction necessarily means that one has a backwards approach to science, but it is not uncommon for those with religious convictions to more frequently have such tendencies when dealing with science.

[taz]

I say Creationism and Evolution be seperate but both offered as an elective course for students who don't want to take either. But probably the schools will force the students to have to take one of them or both as to graduate.

As Creationism part of Geography/History or what ever choices group. Evolution be part of choices in Science group or whatever. That way could be both groups be happy (some wont) and schools could reduce chance of being sued for forcing students to take thoses courses if they don't want to.

[force my hand]

Evidently, having religious conviction is enough to get one accused of having such a "backward approach to science." It's that mindset that bugs the willies out of me.

There are certainly people who would believe this, but it's not a logical necessity (as you yourself would probably argue). It's more of recognizing where science and religion diverge, and not making the mistake of assuming creationism is science, or that evolution is 'just a theory'.

[Creepy-bg]

i thought it was hilarious...hahahaha

i don't think creationism and evolution are necessarily opposed. evolution is more like the nuts and bolts and technical side, whereas creationism is more like the broad brushstroke, written by Moses in the best way he could explain 5,000 years ago.

i've been taught that science and religion answer different questions. that science answers the questions of what and how....religion answers the questions of who and why.

anyway. that's how i make sense of the debate. whether creationism should be taught in schools i think it can be if it is taught as philosophy rather then science.

yup yup yup... that's how I view it too. Evolution is merely one of the perceivable manifestations of creation. In many ways I view religion and science as similar to the point of being two sides of the same coin even though the methods are different. To me both represent our "living", evolving knowledge and capacity to understand the universe we inhabit.

Both came out of humanities drive to order and attempt to understand our enviorment. IMO both are informed by God, yet subject to the filters of human perception. This is why both science and religion are themselves evolving as we are able to understand and percieve a clearer and broader picture of what's around us.

[dbmmama]

yup yup yup... that's how I view it too. Evolution is merely one of the perceivable manifestations of creation. In many ways I view religion and science as similar to the point of being two sides of the same coin even though the methods are different. To me both represent our "living", evolving knowledge and capacity to understand the universe we inhabit.

Both came out of humanities drive to order and attempt to understand our enviorment. IMO both are informed by God, yet subject to the filters of human perception. This is why both science and religion are themselves evolving as we are able to understand and percieve a clearer and broader picture of what's around us.

i'm glad you came back and posted. "two sides of the same coin" is one of my most used phrases. lol i'm with you on this one.

[force my hand]

It can be considered deterministic in the sense that concepts such as free-will do not apply. Though particular outcomes are not determined the possibility range which can grow from a certain set of initial circumstances is.

You're going to have to be patient with me; I simply don't see why you're linking philosophical ideas to a specific branch of science. Can you explain the relevence of this idea to a problem with evolution?

It seems very difficult to complete the sequence of gene sets that have existed on earth because there are so many gaps and a lot of cross-traffic.

'It seems difficult' is often the introduction of a God of the Gaps argument. Everything at one point in science has seemed difficult, but that does not mean there isn't a perfectly reasonable, natural explanation for it.

Also, if quantum mechanics is true then a lot of crazy stuff that we would not normally assume to have occurred may have which would further complicate things.

It does. It is just not significant to a human observer. At least not in the short run.

It has an effect, but not one that's actually relevent. If you run two simulations with the rock in Winnipeg versus the rock in Kansas City, all things being equal the end result will essentially be the same.

The same should be more or less true for biology and evolution, unless you can seriously provide evidence that quantum physics affects the system. There are numerous factors that come into play with gene mutation, for example, but I have never heard of quantum, subatomic effects being a factor. They certainly do not act on the scale of the individual organism. If you could provide and example and prove me wrong, I'd actually appreciate it.

It seems like the new flavor of the week is -not- to model how the world behaves/is but just to correlate data without drawing conclusions.

I can grab any paper off any database and find some sort of a conclusion. I have no idea what you're talking about.

In this respect, I feel no allegiance to the to the evolutionary model nor do I think its further propagation would be necessarily in the best interest of intellectual development (It should probably still be used as an early learning tool for students as long as the above is kept in mind).

Then what would you propose, if not a model that explains very well the very reason why we exist?? Our own intellectual development is directly tied to an evolutionary process, so it's very ironic to me you should say that.

[Minde]

I do not think that having religious conviction necessarily means that one has a backwards approach to science, but it is not uncommon for those with religious convictions to more frequently have such tendencies when dealing with science.

Yes to the first part, perhaps to the second. I would say that a good portion of people, regardless of whether or not they subscribe to a religion, behave like that anyway - putting on the blinders of preconceptions.

Not that I blame people for that, per se. To hold onto preconceived ideas of your world is sometimes necessary. After all, it would be impractical to continually input all the information available and continuously attempt to make concrete sense of it all. Like reading - once you learn how to read, in order to read faster you don't look at every letter anymore, but the shapes of the words, letting what you already expect guide your understanding. (That's often why people misspell things.) But there's a balance to be found, especially when contrary reality intrudes upon the preconceptions. Like in this case. Where someone can indeed be both creationist and scientist.

[jason_m]

That you went to a Catholic high school.

No. You're either joking or you don't get it; even many *religious* schools don't support creationism. That being the case, why should it be taught in *public* high schools?

Jason

[Logos]

No. You're either joking or you don't get it; even many religious authorities don't believe in the creationism stories. That being the case, why should they be taught in *public* high schools?

Jason

No. You miss my point entirely. The only thing worth taking from your statements was that you went to a Catholic high school. Catholic high schools do not create religious policy nor are they sources of it. The fact that you were taught in a Catholic high school that the biblical creation account is not to be taken literally is kind of irrelevant.

[jason_m]

No. You miss my point entirely. The only thing worth taking from your statements was that you went to a Catholic high school. Catholic high schools do not create religious policy nor are they sources of it. The fact that you were taught in a Catholic high school that the biblical creation account is not to be taken literally is kind of irrelevant.

How does that make sense? If it isn't even considered valid by many of those who are most likely to consider it to be valid, then why would it make sense to teach it to everyone, many of whom not necessarily having any religious beliefs?

Jason

[Logos]

How does that make sense? If it isn't even considered valid by many of those who are most likely to consider it to be valid, then why would it make sense to teach it to everyone, many of whom don't necessarily have any religious beliefs?

Jason

It does not matter where you learned, but what you learned.

[HollywoodWanderer]

@force my hand:

I am not arguing for a god, for the impossibility of filling in the gaps in evolutionary theory, or anything else really. What I would say is that quantum mechanics allows for really strange ways by which we could have reached the current state of the world. There are things in quantum mechanics that are far more bizarre than a man walking on water (not that I think this actually occurred). I try not to make truth statements about how the universe works because I don't think it behaves in a fundamentally logical way necessarily. As I understand quantum mechanics anything larger than two hydrogen atoms acts as a decider (in the sense that any matter that interacts with it takes a particular quantum state rather than remaining as a probability wave). In this way many many tiny interactions shift the universe moment by moment changing the face of it which over time builds up into change that is capable of being measured by human beings. If physicists are correct this is how everything that occurs in the universe comes into being. It seems like evolution (on a universal scale) is a shifting of quantum values as different interactions occur. According to scientists everything is impacted by/is this quantal shifting of values including evolution (though you cannot really talk about it as though it is apart from the universe and I personally do not like to anthropomorphize concepts). If this is the universe then things like a two animals being attracted to one another because of pheromones is a process whose outcome is determined by the subatomic quantal interactions that occur between the animals. In this sort of world I do not see how things must necessarily "evolve." Their quantum states can be changed "backwards" just as easily as they can be changed "forwards." For example, a subatomic particle could change dna minutely one way and then another way and then back again within a short period of time. So why do we see progression in what seems to be a chaotic soup of interaction? Perhaps, I am wrong in my understanding that one variable change can be significant in a large gene set (because the sum of their quantum states act upon incoming matter and "decide" it into their universe) but, because matter can spontaneously erupt from "nothing" in quantum mechanics I would imagine that given enough time the entire universe could experience dramatic state change that defies all models we have in place and perhaps this did occur in the past and we have no way of ascertaining/verifying this. Because this is true I do not see the evolutionary model as unequivocally correct. I would not even go so far as to say that this is the best tool that we have at the moment so we should use it until we discover something better. Human beings are uncomfortable with uncertainty so we need to "have something to go off of" this universe seems inherently uncertain until we decide its shape by the way we interact with it. This is why I am speaking in vague general terms. I fundamentally do not know what the universe is doing and I am loathe to say it is doing this or that when the best human minds seem to allow all of the contradictory theories as to why the universe is the way it is an equal place in their heads (it seems like the smarter someone is the more inherently contradictory ideas they can have floating around in their heads at the same time).

By the way, here is an interesting excerpt from a lecture on how to view human evolution as an dynamic interspecies process that in my opinion increases the difficulty in ascertaining where/how/when a particular mutation occurred and the impact that it had on the species in question.



As for models, it seems like the reason we use them is because we cannot experience everything that is going on in the world simultaneously. However, as the world becomes more plugged in have less and less use for models because we can actively monitor everything that we see occurring around us. We can than try to approximate what is going on with mathematical language but no particular instance of this mathematical function is seen as "true." It shifts dynamically as the world shifts. By using this sort of language we can find relationships between sets of things without making if/then, true/false, or causative statements.

Here is an article that might help explain what I am trying to get across

[aestrivex]

This thread has caused me to lose faith in humanity.

Ditto.

i lost my faith in humanity at the age of four.

[dbmmama]

i lost my faith in humanity at the age of four.

so did i, but somewhere along the way i decided to take it on my own shoulders. "if it was to be, it was up to me" thing. i've only begun to take that weight off recently.

[jason_m]

It does not matter where you learned, but what you learned.

Suppose a group is dogmatic, rarely changes its mind, and believes something for many years. One day, there is strong evidence that the belief isn't true. Suddenly, even the group admits that it's not true. Doesn't that say something?

It could even be used around here. Suppose Phaedrus admits that XXXX =/= XXXx. Phaedrus rarely changes his mind about anything. Doesn't it say something that he changed his mind about this?

Jason

[aestrivex]

so did i, but somewhere along the way i decided to take it on my own shoulders. "if it was to be, it was up to me" thing. i've only begun to take that weight off recently.

ah. what a brilliant idea. good luck with that.

[dbmmama]

ah. what a brilliant idea. good luck with that.

i didn't come up with the idea consciously. it's a curse and a blessing at the same time. i've spent my adult life learning to let go....

[Minde]

For anyone who would be interested, here's a site made by a relatively prominent group of creationist scientists that puts forth various evidences that point to creation.

it's a curse and a blessing at the same time.

Monk!

i've spent my adult life learning to let go....

Yeah, I think I know the feeling...

[Creepy-Cyclops]

Religion - the need for it - is most likely came about as a result of evolution.

[strrrng]

@hitta: stop talking, you relativistic retard.

now...

lol it's just fun to talk about all possibilities within everything.......

OMG and you actually think you are ESFp? They have Ne role function. All your vague, philosophical meandering reeks of Ne agenda.

The individual deeply appreciates people who are full of ideas and imagination and who give them a sense of connectedness to what is happening "out there in the world," even if this information cannot be applied practically at the present moment. He is even more grateful for people who provide insightful ideas and unconventional analysis to enhance what he is working on or going through at the present moment.

asdjklfan;jg

[Phaedrus]

You do realize what the word objective means don't you?

Yes, I certainly know what the word "objective" means. I am an expert on philosophical concepts, and more or less an expert on other concepts as well. You, however, definitely don't know the meaning of that word.

And I realize that you might be trying the ole switchaoo thing in which you think that your mind is the objective reality because you only know that you exist, and your reality is the reality(though that's unprovable).

Here you repeat all the mistakes that past philosophers have made for centuries. Your thinking is so muddled that it isn't worth the effort to try to explain to you where you are thinking incorrectly.

If you don't know that your senses are wrong, how do you know if you are right?

That question is also irrelevant. You asked me to name an objective truth, and that's exactly what I did when I said that the Moon is not a Gorgonzola cheeze.